Ceredo advance. [volume] (Ceredo, W. Va.) 1885-1939, 1887-06-16
FOR HONOR'S SAKE.
BY b. L. FARJEoN.
A~tAo- OF -Greas Rprt>r S7rors,' "7hs
Bright Star or Life" Efo.
r,nr 1-cHArrEn VI -corrrsr.p

prisoner. and his incIsive judicial uttor
ances soon dispclled the Impression which,
the prisoners carnestncss had produccd
lie said that in the circumstances of tho
easo his speech would be bricfer than i,
otherwise would have becn lie had N
duty TO perform and he would perform il,
without. no hoped. any undue severity or
harshnees. Unhapily the evidence wis
only too clear against tho prisoner, and
unhapptly the prisoner had strengthened
the case against himself. This WINS not
matter OF continent; IL was n matter OF
justice. aud justice must be tiono. With
slight LIMITATIONS, around which tho pris-
oner throw n veil ~ silence coutrnt;nv
himself to cast suspicion upon then, by
some kind CT mysterious Implication
which no person could understand, and
not vcnturing to give thom n distinct and
indignant dcninl-with slight limitations.
then, tho prisoner had admitted the truth.
fulness OF the evidence brought against
him. As tho prisoner had not d.
recuy referred to these doubtful
points In tho evidence, he would him
solf do so and endeavor 10 clear nwny
any Intent doubt, II such existed. In
tho minds Of tho jury. First, with
respect to tho ulster. The prisoner did
not deny that he wore this ulster on tho
whole OF the day his coachman. John
Mcorhorse, was driving him 10 various
Panoes, ind IL wns only upon his arrival
homo at midnight that he endeayorcd TO
shake the coachmAn's evidence rs TO
whether, when be. entered the carriage,
upon leaving Prcvost's restaurant, aud
upon bis issuing from the carriage when
the ooochman drew up at his house, he
stil had his ulster ON. What his motive
was In endeavorins TO shake tho coach
mans testimony upon this point II was
impossible 10 say. lie 1.-THE learned couu-
Sp Ind most carefully considered tho
matter, and tho only conclusion he could
arrive at was that the prisoner was mix
Ious tn fnstil a doubt into tho minds of the
Jury, that 1t was not he who left the res
taurant Mt IL so and entered his carriage.
and that IL was not he who alightcd from
the carriage and opened his street door.
but supposing. Tor instance, that this mr.
gufnsnt had foundation in fact, was IL
not cosy for the prisoner TO prove what he
bad done with himself between li.50 ON
the night OF the 25th OF March and Z
O'Clock on the morning Of the Goth; Surely
ecTno person or persons must have seen him.
ADD hed he produced those persons there
wouln have been n reasonable alibi set up,
which II would be the duty Of every oao
eng' god In this case seriously to consider
Indeed, no would go 20 far as 20 say tIrnt.
admitting such evidence TO b. brought
forward Ind established, there could not
DO found jury who would convict the
prisoner OF the charge brought against
him. IL would then havo been proycd
THAI tia prisoner Lad not seen his wife
from III O'Clock on tho morning OF tho 18th
az March until o'clock on the morning
OF the sd.h; and GS 1t was during the night
OF those days that the unhappy lady met
her death, IL would have been impossible
70 hrfn No
as this evidence must havo been 10 pro-
ducs, there IA not only no attempt to pro
duoe II, but IN his lamentably impotent
speech tao prisoner docs not even refer To
It In his mind then, and In the minds Of
Ill reasonable men, there could net be n
doubt that this was the caso of one who
In despair, was catching Mt O straw to
save himself. The learned council touched
briefly but incisiveiy upon every point in
the evidence concerning which the pris-
oncr had maintained silence and had mado
no endsayor to confutc. For instance,
there was tho Lady whom no met In
bloomsbury square. whom no took TO Pre-
vests restaurant, whom he RECALLED with
n supper which neither he nor sho
touched distinct proof Tint they were
otharwtse momcntously occupied The
evidence with respect TO this lady Is ire
fraSnole. She was no shadow, no myth.
no creation 81 the Imagination; shc was
vcritablc being OF flesh and blood All
the efforts OF the prosecution Ind failed to
trace her, I'D the just deduction was that
she wos somewhere In hiding, afraid TO
como forward lest she might DC merlin.
inated and placed side by side with tho
prisoner In tho dock. The prisoner did
not deny her existence, nor that she and
he wore for several hours in company with
each othcr. We're he innocent what poa-
nhle doubt could exist that he would
bring her forward 10 cstabllRh his limo
oencof Hero both innocent, would not
ans OF her own accord step forward to
prove IT, Tho prisoner In his address
mAdo certain nllusions 70 honor and con.
science, by which he would make II ap.
pear Tint he was guided by his honor and
his oonscicDcs IN TIE singular method Of
bis defense, and II may 10 that there or.
hted In him some mistaken gcnEc of chiv.
airy which Induced him tn do all I'm hie
power 70 screen the partner in his crime.
~ would have been better for him had no
brought his honor and his COINCIDENCE 20
boar In the unhappy epgngcment into
which he entered with the unfortunate
lndy who nfterward bocGmo bis wife; but
II hnd been amply proved that the mar.
r1nge was not on his side at least n mar
rtAge OF affection. Distinctly he married
her for her money, and dlstinctly ne would
DC great gnlnor by her death. Thus.
then, thcre existed n motive. and not n
nOvel Ono-for the tragedy hns beOn
played many times in the history of crime
for his getting rid Of her He tho
counsel - tho prosocutiun) did not wish 10
pFees hardly upon the priaoncr, who wns
a man Of culture nnd education md must
teel keenly The position IN which he stood
Whatover might b his Outyynrd derncnnor
but IL deyolvcd upon him 70 Impross
upon the jury not 70 allow aay false sen.
anSent 70 cause them 10 swcrye
tom the EtEaight path OF duty
They must decide by the evfdcnre
which had boon presented q, Them
and u was with feeling the reverse OF
hntlsfnctory that be pointed ont u them
result
Tho summing up 81 tho lcarno1 lndeo
which with the attorney gcnerai's
Fpcoeb. viii 10 found fully rrpofto,l m
othcr columne3 was mnsierIv nneIrsls
OF the evidence which had been ndducod
He impruesod upon the fury tho nooessltv
81 calm delihorGtinn and ~ absolute con
yetl0n httore thoy pronounced their vor.
net CiFcumstautial evidence WA. II ou
oyidenoe' tho mo5t porplexinz nVi don
Borotis. 10 bad, in BOmo rnro ingtanccs
erred hut thoea exceptions were. happfIv
lev nnd Tar between IL had. on a.
other hand, led % the detection Of grent
sriminnle, nud without it5 al many holm
ofls age,rcee-ors AGAINST the law vvOrd stlo
through the hands Of juEtlco Re a.
ulss-cN tho Jury u tIrGr Huta. - a.